74 292. Concerning pecuniary damage, taking into consideration that the representatives did not provide enough evidence to determine the exact amounts regarding each of the violations declared, the Court considers that the damages suffered by the Community and its members can be defined as lost wages since they could not fully enjoy their lands economically due to the lack of demarcation, titling (regarding plot A1) (infra Map Annex), the sale of parts of their lands to third parties, and the lack of consultation for the “Marbella” and “Playa Escondida” tourism projects and part of the Punta Izopo national park, as well as its Management Plan. 293. Regarding the non-pecuniary damage, the Court verifies that the request made by the representatives in their final arguments was presented in a time-barred manner. However, this Court, in order to assess the possible non-pecuniary damages caused in the case sub judice, has taken into consideration the statements offered by Ángel Castro Martínez and Clara Eugenia Flores before this Court during the public hearing, and by Messrs. Olivia Ramos, Teresa Reyes, Beatriz Ramos, Secundino Torres, Alfredo López, Francis Secundina López, Ilaria Cacho, Dionicio Álvarez, César Benedit Zúñiga, and Doris Rinabett Benedict in their statements given before a notary public, since the damages caused to them are representative of those caused to the rest of the victims, who all belong to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. 294. The Court refers to its considerations regarding the violation of Article 21, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. The lack of demarcation of the lands over which a collective property title deed was granted to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, as well as the lack of titling of plot “A1” (infra Map Annex) acknowledged as traditional territory by the State, as well as the lack of protection of those lands against third parties, negatively affected the use and enjoyment of the territorial rights of the Community and its members, which the Court will take into consideration upon defining the non-pecuniary damage. Moreover, the Court observes that the special meaning the land has for indigenous and tribal peoples in general, and for the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz in particular, implies that all denial to the enjoyment or exercise of their territorial rights entails a damage to very important values for the members of those peoples, who are in danger of losing or suffering irreparable damages to their life and cultural identity and to the cultural heritage to be passed on to future generations. 295. Given that the State was found responsible of the violation of Articles 2, 21, 8, and 25 of the Convention, as that the variety of measures of reparation requested by the representatives seek to, as a whole, benefit the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, the Court considers it appropriate to analyze those measures in light of the creation of a Community development fund as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the members of the Community. In this sense, this Fund is additional to any other present or future benefit that may correspond to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz in relation to the State’s general development duties. 296. Regarding the aforementioned, the Court points out that, in view of: dispossession of their territory; ii) the damages caused to it, and iii) that indigenous people have the right to conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their territories and natural resources;258 the Fund must be destined, pursuant to the agreements reached with the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, to: i) developing projects oriented towards increasing agricultural or any other productivity in the Community; ii) improve the Community’s infrastructure according to its present and future needs; iii) restore the Cfr. Article 29 subparagraph 1 of the United National Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples of September 13, 2007. 258